Furukawa Electric North America, Inc. v. Sterlite Optical Technologies, et al., No. 1:02-cv-2149 (N.D. Ga., Jan. 30, 2008) (Pannell, J.)
Judge Pannell ruled on the Defendants’ and the Plaintiff’s Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment regarding the validity of three patents-in-suit, the ‘816 patent, the ‘047 patent, and the ‘881 patent, which relate to certain processes for making optical fibers and the fibers formed according to such techniques. As described below, the Court addressed issues such as obviousness-type double patenting, enablement of prior art references, the written description requirement, and obviousness in light of the Supreme Court's decision in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex.
The ‘816 Patent:
The Court found that the asserted claims of the ‘816 patent were invalid under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims in the ‘027 patent, one of a series of continuation patents to which the ‘816 claimed priority. In particular, the Court compared each asserted claim in the ‘816 patent with a claim in the ‘027 patent and determined that the differences were insufficient to render the claims of the ‘816 patentably distinct. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of invalidity and denied the Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment of validity.
The ‘047 Patent:
The Defendants contended that the ‘047 patent was invalid as anticipated and/or obvious in view of (1) an international patent application, the ‘232 application, and (2) a prior art patent, the ‘273 patent. The Court found that the ‘232 application did not explicitly disclose each and every limitation of the method claimed in the ‘047 patent, and rejected the defendants’ argument that certain limitations were inherently disclosed. The Court therefore granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment that the ‘047 patent is not invalid as anticipated by the ‘232 application. As to the ‘273 patent, the Court found genuine issues of material fact as to whether the ‘273 patent was enabling in certain respects and qualified as prior art against the '047 patent, and therefore denied both Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of anticipation.
The Court also identified genuine issues of material fact with respect to the obviousness of the ‘047 patent. Specifically, the Court noted the disparate testimony as to whether one skilled in the art would have considered it practical to combine the teachings of the prior art references and whether one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Consequently, the Court denied both the Plaintiff’s and the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the validity of the ‘047 patent based on obviousness.
The ‘881 Patent:
The Defendants’ sought a determination that the ‘881 patent was invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement and for obviousness. Because the Court found that the parties raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether the applicants were in possession of the claimed invention with respect to certain distance parameters recited in the asserted claims, the Court denied the respective Motions for Summary Judgment based on the written description requirement. As for obviousness of the ‘881 patent, the Court did not accept the Defendants’ argument that the claimed distance parameters would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, finding that the Defendants’ evidence in support was derived through impermissible hindsight. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment of validity of the ‘881 patent based on obviousness was therefore granted.
Judge Pannell ruled on the Defendants’ and the Plaintiff’s Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment regarding the validity of three patents-in-suit, the ‘816 patent, the ‘047 patent, and the ‘881 patent, which relate to certain processes for making optical fibers and the fibers formed according to such techniques. As described below, the Court addressed issues such as obviousness-type double patenting, enablement of prior art references, the written description requirement, and obviousness in light of the Supreme Court's decision in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex.
The ‘816 Patent:
The Court found that the asserted claims of the ‘816 patent were invalid under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims in the ‘027 patent, one of a series of continuation patents to which the ‘816 claimed priority. In particular, the Court compared each asserted claim in the ‘816 patent with a claim in the ‘027 patent and determined that the differences were insufficient to render the claims of the ‘816 patentably distinct. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of invalidity and denied the Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment of validity.
The ‘047 Patent:
The Defendants contended that the ‘047 patent was invalid as anticipated and/or obvious in view of (1) an international patent application, the ‘232 application, and (2) a prior art patent, the ‘273 patent. The Court found that the ‘232 application did not explicitly disclose each and every limitation of the method claimed in the ‘047 patent, and rejected the defendants’ argument that certain limitations were inherently disclosed. The Court therefore granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment that the ‘047 patent is not invalid as anticipated by the ‘232 application. As to the ‘273 patent, the Court found genuine issues of material fact as to whether the ‘273 patent was enabling in certain respects and qualified as prior art against the '047 patent, and therefore denied both Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of anticipation.
The Court also identified genuine issues of material fact with respect to the obviousness of the ‘047 patent. Specifically, the Court noted the disparate testimony as to whether one skilled in the art would have considered it practical to combine the teachings of the prior art references and whether one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Consequently, the Court denied both the Plaintiff’s and the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the validity of the ‘047 patent based on obviousness.
The ‘881 Patent:
The Defendants’ sought a determination that the ‘881 patent was invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement and for obviousness. Because the Court found that the parties raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether the applicants were in possession of the claimed invention with respect to certain distance parameters recited in the asserted claims, the Court denied the respective Motions for Summary Judgment based on the written description requirement. As for obviousness of the ‘881 patent, the Court did not accept the Defendants’ argument that the claimed distance parameters would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, finding that the Defendants’ evidence in support was derived through impermissible hindsight. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment of validity of the ‘881 patent based on obviousness was therefore granted.
0 comments:
Post a Comment